Five years ago, the headline below would have scared me. Today it makes me take pause and look for supportive data and additional information. What a fundamental change that is indeed. (Full article associated with this headline here)

One of the first things I ran across when googling ‘splenda leukemia’ was this Op Ed from Forbes. Oh isn’t this interesting? The institute from which the study came is known for sketchy science practices.

(I half expected to find the ever-infamous Seralini’s name mentioned somewhere in the text. Remember him? He designed a study using rats prone to tumors, fed them GMOs and then produced so-called data showing that the GMOs caused the tumors. This study was a joke to the science world – published, retracted, republished – and a lot of people believed it and still do. The pictures of those poor, lumpy rats provided the emotional hook.

Giles Seralini with one of his sad, little rats.

Why Be Transparent When You Can Be Theatrical?

Forbes Contributor Trevor Butterworth writes:

Normally, when academics find something that might be of deep concern to public health, they submit their research to peer-reviewed scientific publications, which then fast-track the findings online if, that is, their academic reviewers find the study rigorous enough for publication. Moreover, these publications also send out an embargoed copy of the paper to journalists, along with a press release. In theory, this gives time for journalists to read through the paper, examine the data, and formulate questions for the authors of the research or other outside experts.

But why be transparent when you can be theatrical? In a move that bypasses good but boring scientific practice and goes straight for the klieg lights and the razzle dazzle of the media, Dr Morando Soffritti, Director of the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna, Italy offers only a press release saying that he found mice were at increased risk for cancer after being fed Splenda, the popular non-calorie sweetener.

Later, Butterworth adds (emphasis mine):

He (Soffriti) plans on telling the world more about this alarming finding, which disagrees with everything else we know about Splenda and sucralose, at a conference on childhood cancer in London tomorrow (Wednesday 25th), organized by Children with Cancer UK.

Ok, so this article alone makes me become very skeptical indeed about this study linking leukemia to Splenda, or sucralose, the generic name of the substance. I now wonder, well what does the actual data say? From here I try to find evidence-based articles where I can hopefully find links to actual peer-reviewed research. To find the actual studies with a few simple clicks proves difficult but I make a vow to dig in deeper later. Sticking with the Forbes piece I go on to read:

The problem hanging over the Splenda finding is that which hangs over the Ramazzini Institute in general: Quality control. No matter what substance the Institute tests for cancer, the results always seem to be positive, whereas other laboratories testing the same substances repeatedly fail to come up with the same findings.

Then I go on to read:

Take aspartame, which the Ramazzini Institute declared carcinogenic in a study it conducted in 2005 and multiple studies thereafter. The European Union’s Food Safety Authority commissioned a panel of experts to examine this study as a matter of high priority, given its alarming findings; its conclusions, however, were devastating. It appeared that many of the rats were sick with chronic lung respiratory disease, which just so happens to cause the same kinds of cancer that Ramazzini attributed to aspartame.

That sounds alarmingly like what Seralini did!

Suffice it to say, this study has been extensively and internationally criticized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the UK’s Department of Health Committee on the Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COC), the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA/ANSES), and the New Zealand Food Safety Authory (NZFSA) and others. Quite an impressive – and for me, convincing – list.

I smell a rat!

One would assume that a research institute that wanted to be taken seriously would be concerned that so much criticism was coming it’s way. Apparently that is not the case. Butterworth writes:

The pattern was, tell the media about the cancer warning first, inflame public and political opinion, then stonewall the agencies on the data later. None of the studies were ever published in a leading, peer-reviewed cancer journal.

I still haven’t been able to get to the actual peer-reviewed studies initially done on sucralose. But that doesn’t mean I’m giving up. It is on my to-do list. The bottom line of what I’m trying to express is that we as consumers have to perform our due diligence if we want the actual facts. The science may in future show that sucralose is dangerous. But it hasn’t yet. That is what I know so far.

Here are some dos and don’ts that I follow:

Don’t just blindly believe any old headline you see. As I encounter headlines that are in line with what I may already believe only because I’ve heard something here or there, I am extra skeptical. I must remember at all times that beliefs are NOT facts. I must dig in my heels and do some research.

Don’t accept the first several click results from google as being the end-all, be-all of information.

Do place a red flag in my mind next to emotional appeals, sensationalized headlines, dramatic statements, photographs and memes. Find out more. Look for evidence-based information but be aware that a lot of websites disguise data as being science based when it is not at all. Always be on the lookout for trustworthy sources. Research can be difficult to understand if you haven’t studied the sciences in grad school. Find an expert to help you!

Doc Mercola is at it again – spreading fear and misinformation. Claiming a scientific position when in fact, his extremist posts about GMOs are quite the opposite. I subscribe to his emails – for entertainment mostly. Though I delete the vast majority of the emails, every now and then I open one up, as I did today, and found this link to an article. I am posting the blood syringes poking the tomato as well, the picture accompanying the article – a common anti-GMO meme that is so laughably NOT what GMOs are. The hook in my inbox was quite misleading as well. It said: Beware: These 10 Food Companies Are Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing

Admittedly, there are things Mercola posts that are true – the well-documented benefits of high intensity exercise (known as high intensity interval training, or HIIT) for example. Consider this article published on the Science Daily website way back in 2010. Granted, Mercola has published extensively about HIIT. But to find truth on his website you really have to work at it. I doubt most people are willing to put in that kind of time and research.

Generally, Mercola is extremely anti-medical establishment, and I go so far as to say believe anything he says at your own risk – and likely peril. I actually considered stopping my mammograms back in the day when I believed in Mercola’s snake oil. He also claims that over half our diets should be made up of saturated fats.

Really? I almost bought that one too – no supportive citations sought. I believed anything in those days. The new Julee K googles subjects and includes ‘science’ as a search term. It’s amazing what different links show up with just one little added word – like this short Harvard School of Public Health article – clearly advising a moderate consumption of saturated fats based on scientific evidence.

Now I take the time to find peer-reviewed evidence to back up all the anecdotal claims made on the anything-goes new Wild West called the internet.

OK – back to GMOs.

Crop breeding technology, which is the broader category that a ‘food GMO’ falls into, is exciting! It is promising, full of possibilities and has the potential to solve many worldwide food-growing problems like pests and drought. There are many choices, many ways to get it done. We are entering a new age of the ability to manipulate DNA and as an open-minded non-scientist, I find myself intrigued by it – not scared.

Consider all the advancements in genetics when it comes to medicine. Do the GMO haters realize that drugs as commonplace and inexpensive as insulin would be impossible without genetic engineering? We are certainly reluctant to criticize or even be fearful of biological advancements when they cure cancer, right? Read about British baby Layla Richards. Given these life-saving, gene-altering miracles, why does gene-altering crop technology scare us so much?

The bottom line for me is this: good technology of any kind is not to be feared and even if it is feared, it shall not be stopped. Knowledge can’t be unlearned.

I’m not talking about Charlton Heston’s chilling revelation that – Soylent green is people – it’s people! – at the end of the classic sci-fi flick of the same name. That movie was based on a novel called Make room! Make room! by Harry Harrison. In the novel, ‘soylent’ was a product derived from a cross between soy and lentils, not people!

I am referring to a new way of, shall we say, obtaining nutrition. Notice I didn’t say ‘eating’. In my constant endeavor to be sleuthy, I discovered Soylent – a powdered mixture that is combined with water to create a thick drink that is similar in consistency to pancake batter. It offers everything the human body needs for fuel – the macro nutrients – fat, carbs and protein, the micro nutrients – vitamins and minerals.

Invented by a Silicon Vally techie to eliminate the inconvenience of having to deal with shopping for food, preparing food and cleaning up after food, I was first drawn to his blog posts about the early days of his experimentation with recipes and ingredient lists and values. His starting point was standardized government RDIs and from there he began to build his recipe. Read the blog here.

I got in on the initial crowd funding for the fledgling company and waited several months to receive my first shipment of seven pouches of the drink. I waited as long as I could – nearly a year – until its month of expiration to actually use the Soylent. I guess I was a little afraid of it at first. Since my 23-year-old son has been on Soylent for several months, I gave him two pouches and saved the five remaining for myself.

I fell in love with the product immediately. Initially I felt hungry but when my body got used to it after the first few days, I felt content and happy and I didn’t miss food. A sense of well being came over me, almost bordering on euphoria at times. I lost all cravings for sweets, crunchy, salty foods, even for my beloved early evening glass or two (or three or four) of wine or beer. For someone who has battled with over-indulging all my life, that is a monumental feat. Never before have I spent the languid hours after dinner feeling truly satisfied – not wanting something.

Now I have joined the DIY Soylent movement and have made up my first few batches. I don’t quite have my own personal recipe finalized yet – am still tweaking this and that but I happily learn as I go. Procuring all the ingredients is not for the faint of heart as it is quite tedious. I will be posting more about this experience for sure. Here is a fantastic New Yorker article about the history of DIY Soylent and Soylent itself.

I have found that because I am married and my husband does not eat soylent (yet), it is in both of our best interest if I eat regular food on, say, the weekends and soylent during the week. I will of course partake in all social gatherings, holiday meals, birthdays, etc. Soylent is just something I know I can easily prepare and get all my obligatory nutrients when nothing special is going on.

I did have some blood work done after four days on Soylent and all my important numbers were down from four years ago – even my blood pressure and weight. I was pretty happy with that!

The implications for feeding the world with this food innovation are more than I am prepared to write about at the moment – but such a post is coming.

This is no cheap drugstore diet drink, no gimmicky supplement, this is real food – a quality product with full caloric values – and it will have an impact on the food industry. Of that I am sure.

Last January 20 at about nine in the evening I got a call from Dr. Kevin Folta. He would be passing through my area of Portland on his way back to the airport after completing an engagement in Salem. If I had time, could we meet for an IPA? He already knew via our email communication that I am most appreciative of a good IPA and could probably steer us in the direction of one of many available in this area.

So, let’s see, did I have time to meet the eminent Dr. Folta in person? I thought about it for a millisecond – yes of course I had time! Never mind that my husband and I were leaving for a near month-long trip to SE Asia early the following morning. I wasn’t passing up this opportunity. I had known Dr. Folta would be in my neck of the woods as we had discussed possibly meeting. I was delighted it was actually going to happen.

My utmost respect and fondness for Kevin Folta go back several years. The backstory is that I used to be an anti-GMO blogger and thought I was helping to save the world from what I perceived at the time to be laboratory-concocted-franken-organisms that were wiggling around in our food and sure to be the reason for the so-called proliferation of modern illness.

My brother had just died of brain cancer and I was in a vulnerable place, grieving, looking for answers, and I wanted to stand for something. My generalized fear of GMOs, the case for labeling and the 2012 California Prop 37 campaign all converged at just the right time and I jumped into blog activism with both feet.

After several months of being a good soldier for the cause – quoting the likes of Vendana Shiva, Jeffrey Smith and, admittedly, even the Mercola website, after copying and pasting anti-GMO memes and expounding on the evils of this technology and the call for labeling, I came in direct contact with Dr. Folta. I never expected to make his acquaintance, it just sort of happened. A blog comment here, an email there turned into spirited communication between the two of us. And I’m ever so grateful it happened that way.

The thing that Dr. Folta did was engage me on an individual level – meaning he took the time to chat with me over email and appeal to my sense of reason and intellect. He wondered was I open-minded enough to examine the facts as I went on with my tirades against crop genetic modification. Was I truly willing to look at what the evidence showed?

In short, yes I was.

He answered very specific questions I had – about Roundup Ready seeds, glyphosate resistance, the Bt trait, anything I asked him. (Our three-part Q & A is here, here & here). He challenged my way of thinking in a profound way – like a bug crawling around in my ear. It was annoying! I disliked him at first, thought he was way too bold and had a lot of nerve.

I could have ignored what he had to say of course. I don’t have a background in science and I could have chosen to believe the maverick group of scientists out there who believe there are dangers with GMOs – as opposed to the tens of thousands who steadfastly agree that the evidence shows – the data shows – no more dangers with GMOs than other breeding methods. I was beginning to experience an internal shift while I pivoted – my mind opening. What exactly were the sources of data that showed GMOs were harmful? When I looked beyond the one-click, fear peddling websites, I realized that the sources I was trusting were not credible.

The vast preponderance of molecular biologists and geneticists worldwide, the learned group of experts who work with this branch of science in laboratories every day, know the exact mechanisms whereby genetic modification, or transgenic technology, is realized and much to my surprise, none of it scares them. Why? Because they understand the process. Knowledge takes us out of a fear state. These scientists, Folta included, are in fact excited and see a future rife with possibilities for advantageous use of the technology.

Even more profound than all of that though was what Dr. Folta taught me about personal beliefs. And this has changed my life in more ways that just how I feel about GMOs. He was able to steer me round to recognizing that long held beliefs aren’t facts. They feel like and inform our decisions very much like facts but they are not facts.

This was a huge realization – absolutely monumental. As human beings we are inclined to treat our beliefs as facts to the point of refusing to accept any information to the contrary, even if it is true and correct. Look no further than fundamental religious faith and fanaticism for a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Regarding GMOs, much to my embarrassment I realized I had jumped on a fervent bandwagon, one that was fast becoming elevated to cult status and worst of all, I had no idea what I was talking about. I was a fear-mongering fanatic and I was flat out wrong. I did some deep inner reflecting, some serious soul searching and realized I had to change my position. There was nothing else I could do. Peruse this blog and you will see the whole story unfold through my posts. I left all of it as a testament to my journey.

Well, fast forward a few years and the public debate rages on. I have been hated by anti-GMO types ever since. They think Monsanto pays me (in addition to the additional tens of thousands of scientists, farmers and others worldwide who speak in favor of GMOs – here a shill, there a shill, everywhere a shill-shill). They think I am evil, a traitor, stupid, duped, naive and should stick to music and humanities (what I studied in college) and get out of the health blog business (which is no business as I am entirely volunteer). They stop at nothing to discredit and hurl insults at me.

In recent months though, something much more sinister has been going on. Certain organized factions of this general pool of GMO haters have carried out what amounts to a witch hunt against Dr. Folta – and it just gets uglier and more ridiculous. (Read details here.) Using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the right-to-know folks have demanded he turn over all his university emails that fall within the agribusiness category since 2012. They are looking for financial ties to biotech – namely – Monsanto so they can self-righteously scream “see he is paid to say what he says!” These groups are sure that Folta and his peers are industry lackeys, paid to lie about GMOs, paid to deceive and deliberately withhold the real truth.

Dr. Folta has always claimed to be a public scientist under no organization or business authority. He has repeatedly insisted that he is independent, only about the science, and has in recent years taken to many out-reach endeavors to spread the message of science and how it can benefit mankind. He posts regularly in his popular blog calledIllumination. He enjoys showing kids his experiments with light and strawberries and is willing to go out of his way if it means educating even just one person (I am a perfect example of this.)

It has been my observation as I’ve become more acquainted with him over time that he works tirelessly, is as dedicated to his work as is humanly possible, is not particularly fond of big business, is actually for the little guy and mom and pop businesses and most of all, wants people to know what he knows – that this fear of transgenic technology, of GMOs, is unfounded. The data is just not there to support the fear.

But there are still those that seek to ruin this man because what he teaches is in direct contrast to their beliefs so they will not accept it, much like fundamentalist Christians won’t accept that evolution happened. Through the FOIA inquiries, both Dr. Folta and the Universtiy of Florida have been subjected to time consuming, tedious examinations of electronic correspondence, not to mention what has been spent in lawyer fees. Your tax money at work!

So, did the haters find their smoking gun? I’m sure they will say they did, in the form of a 25K grant from Monsanto to the University of Florida for science outreach. This is not and never was personal income to Dr. Folta. This grant equates to some travel expenses and speaking engagement fees. Hardly making him rich and certainly not worth lying for because a scientist lives on his or her reputation! But in light of this so-called ‘find’ – these GMO haters think they’ve turned the tables on Dr. Folta.

Because my blog refers to him a lot I’m getting snarky comments that now we know what a shill he really is and so on. Well, I hate to burst the bubble of you haters out there but the university gave the Monsanto money to charity. Yes, you heard me. Because of the continuing harassment, that was the preferable choice.

Recently I contacted Folta and asked for a statement about where things stood with the Monsanto grant. Here was his reply, and his frustration is noted. Emphasis is mine:

The shill gambit is a simple way to discredit those that speak language incompatible with the cult’s beliefs.

The donation came to support a science communication outreach program. Nothing went to me personally. My program was the same before, during, and now after the funding period, so their donation had zero effect on the content.They didn’t control the message. I would not let that happen.

After the endless distortions, online reputation destruction and threats to my lab and home, the university transferred the donation from the communications program to a campus food pantry.

So no funds from Monsanto, in fact, once the university defunded the program I now have a $11,000 deficit.

Before the Monsanto support I paid for the program sort of personally. Speaker fees, honoraria, etc all went into the outreach program. These were fees from $500-$5000 that could have been personally absorbed, but instead were put into communications outreach.

The company did nothing wrong. I did nothing wrong. I’m teaching science that the cult does not want taught, as it costs them market share and treads on their beliefs.

They’d rather trash the career of a scientist dedicated to public outreach and public science for 30 years, than to actually learn the science.

So on that night in January, Dr. Folta and I downed a few of Oregon’s finest craft beers. We talked about our families, about how we all might meet again in a social way and wouldn’t that be fun. We talked about his unceasing commitment to science education. I thoroughly enjoyed the time we spent together and feel lucky to have met him face to face. He probably doesn’t even know what a fan of his I really am!

When someone teaches you something profound, you don’t ever forget it. I can count on one hand those teachers in my life who changed me. They are so very special to me and I can only hope I have had a similar effect on even one person in my lifetime.

Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Addendum:

Well, I used to teach music to children so here you go – my expertise unleashed! And of course, Monsanto pays them ALL – with full benefits and a 401k. (For those who may not be in on the joke, this is satire)

This post was updated at 1:56 PDT on 9/9/2015 and again at 10:32 on 9/10/2015

Today I am reviewing a brief video that packs a punch – titled GMOs and Health Safety, presented May 9 of this year at the UCLA Women’s Health Conference. The speaker is Alan McHughen. an Oxford-educated molecular geneticist with a focus on crop improvement and sustainability.

There are four things I especially appreciate about this video.

1. It is relatively short and accessible to any non-sciency lay person (which would be humanities-major me.)

2. Dr. McHughen emphasizes that all the hullabaloo over GMOs in foods is really a moot point because by the time the much maligned ‘just-label-it’ foods hit store shelves, there isn’t anything close to an organism in them let alone a genetically modified one. So yes, all this hysteria that has large sections of the public in a snit is really much ado about nothing. He says (emphasis mine):

Genetically engineered corn, soybean, cotton, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets – they’re the ones that you’re likely to encounter (in the marketplace). But the food products that you get from those are things like corn oil, soybean oil, vegetable oil, cottonseed oil, canola oil or sugar from sugar beets – those aren’t genetically modified organisms. In fact we don’t have GMOs in any of our foods because there are no organisms in any of our food – except maybe pro-biotic yogurts and things but the organisms stay behind. In fact, even the genetically engineered plants stay behind when you process a corn plant for oil. You’re removing the DNA and the proteins. What you get at the end is corn oil which is identicle whether its squeezed out of a genetically engineered corn kernel or a non genetically engineered corn kernel. When they say 80% of our food contains GMOs, number one: NONE of our food contains GMOs or even organisms, except probiotics which are not genetically engineered as far as I know. There are no remnants of the GE process in what is called genetically engineered corn oil. It is identicle to traditional corn oil.

Folks, this is one of the big reasons the farm and food industry object to labeling, and who can blame them? The term “GMOs” is misleading as it infers some kind of ingredient, where there is none. Genetic engineering is a technology, just as is the extremely common mutation breeding, which is way worse in my opinion, but no one seems to care. I’ll eat a genetically modified product any day.

3. McHughen reminds us how many farmers worldwide willingly choose to grow the most common varieties of soy, corn and cotton crops using the Roundup Ready and Bt seeds. Farmers are NOT unwitting victims of Monsanto, as is commonly believed across the web. They are wise business people who want to make a good living like anyone else – while offering an excellent product to consumers. They make decisions based on productivity. And no one, absolutely no one is as concerned about their land as they are. They’re not going to just blindly poison it.

4. Somehow, and in a very short time, McHughen touches on many of the lesser known but wide spread benefits derived by GE technology while simultaneously dispelling myth after myth. He mentions the genetic engineering process used to create insulin, chymosin (used in the making of cheese) and the cystic fibrosis drug dornase alfa.

In closing I’ll admit that McHughen doesn’t paint an entirely rosy picture when it comes to genetic engineering. He does briefly introduce areas where actual danger could be lurking but more importantly, he underscores the absolutely crucial fact that the fear of our current food supply being somehow tainted or toxic because of GMOs is ERRONEOUS.

No disrespect is intended toward people who are fearful of GMOs, I just ask you to consult respected sources for your information. Start with GMO Answers, a website where McHughen is a contributor.

Earlier this week I was putzing around my house in the afternoon with the TV blaring to keep me company and ABC’s show The Doctors came on. I’ve always put this show, perhaps mistakenly, in the same category as Dr. Oz, mainly because these types of shows come off, to me anyway, as generally somewhat annoying, dumbed down and clearly targeted to a demographic of which I am not a part (so I’d like to hope, anyway). I didn’t pay much attention to it until a segment begin to air about glyphosate, the most commonly used herbicide used worldwide (see videos below).

My first thought was, oh, here we go, more Roundup slamming, more Monsanto bashing. More hysteria. More fear. The latest I have heard concerning the ongoing glyphosate saga is that it will cause half our children to have autism by 2025, or something close to that, and other such hyperbole.

Let me be clear, I’m not trying to defend Roundup in this post. To me, it is a tool farmers and home gardeners use and its benefits outweigh its risks. That’s it. I’m not in love with the stuff. I myself use Roundup, or more often than not, off-brand generic copies of Roundup to spot treat certain pesky weeds in my yard that are difficult to remove any other way, such as when they grow amongst thick, desirable ground covers or are otherwise hard to dig up. But suffice it to say, I am judicious with my use of Roundup or any other herbicide.

So my sudden focus on the show’s segment about glyphosate was more about the mechanism of how hysteria spreads than the actual topic – if that makes sense (I hope it does.) My interest was piqued – so I watched.

Unfortunately, to just say something could cause cancer really scares a lot of people who don’t have the science background to understand the mechanism involved, where the data came from, how the conclusion was reached and so forth.

Toxicologist tells it like it is

The first guest was Dr. Donna Farmer, a toxicologist from the Product safety Center at Monsanto. Her job is to study the safety of Monsanto products. Specifically, she has studied glyphosate throughout her tenure at the much maligned company. She calmly informed everyone that she was a mom too and stated that: “I’ve been a scientist at Monsanto for twenty years and this (glyphosate) has been the molecule that I’ve studied all of those years and I’m absolutely confident of the data behind it”.

She went on to mention a recent German study* (see below for excerpt and commentary) that found NO link between glyphosate and cancer and later adds, “I understand why everyone is concerned. There is a lot of confusion. There is a lot of misinformation on the internet but I will tell you, and I mean this very honestly – I am extremely, highly confident in this product, as a mom, and then I can back it up as a scientist.”

Seriously – this woman could be my neighbor. She isn’t some coy Monsanto lab rat cooking up poison. I have said many times in this blog that I tend to believe scientists because they are experts in their field, just as I believe my hair stylist, my plumber, my auto mechanic because they too are experts in their field. To be at the doctoral level in any discipline requires years and years upon more years of concentrated study, effort and dogged determination. It defies logic that after all those years of painstaking work to earn and keep current the highest academic credential, that a scientist would then make stuff up, or hide stuff, or tell bold-faced lies.

Yes, even if this scientist works for Monsanto. What does one suppose she has done for the past 20 years in her lab? Research lies and conduct fake experiments?

The whole everyone-who-doesn’t-hate-Monsanto-is-a-shill mentality belongs, in my opinion in the conspiracy theory hall of fame. I understand that, yes, there have been a handful of crazy, malevolent scientists out there throughout history and bad things have resulted. But for the most part I don’t equate science with crazy. Knowledge tends to set one free from the crazy – unless maybe one is mentally ill or something unfortunate like that, but I saw nothing in Farmer that would make me think she were anything other than a highly intelligent, skilled and productive citizen. Bottom line: Scientists who work for companies are hired because of the knowledge, skill and expertise they can bring to their job.

So Who is the real expert?

Well, then of course the segment had to feature the opposing side, the side that is telling you your sons and daughters are going to all get autism and any and all disease by such and such a date due to glyphosate. None other than Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible technology came on the show. He popped up on screen and gave his spiel about the evils of glyphosate.

It kills me that he is always introduced as some kind of “expert” when, in fact, he has NO science credential whatsoever. (In fact, a serious case could be made that he has quite unfairly targeted the biotech industry due to his spiritual beliefs, but that’s another post…)

Anyway, vast amounts of unsuspecting folks, including yours truly back before I knew better, have listened to and been highly influenced by this guy and to be sure, most of the audience and even the other cohosts were buying it….

Until Dr. Travis Stork changed direction in the segment by saying he came from a family of farmers and that they all use herbicides and the subtext appeared to me to be that he was absolutely fine with that. He talked about balancing the benefit versus the harm, adding that there need to be more definitive studies done.

In short, what I gleaned form his comments was that he wasn’t having any of the hype, even as perhaps his cohosts were. Because of Dr. Stork’s comments, it was the most even-handed treatment of a controversial topic I have yet to see on daytime television. Good for you Travis! He was the one voice of reason on the show. He admonished everyone to go read the studies for themselves. Be informed.

The problem with laypeople looking for ‘studies’ on the internet

The only thing he forgot to mention was where to find a legitimate, respected, repeatable, peer reviewed study. Unfortunately there is a lot of really bad science out there posing as the real deal. Studies like the infamous Seralini’s tumorous rats fed GMO corn or so-called MIT senior scientist Stephania Seneff’s study linking glyphosate to increases in incidences of autism and other disease, etc., don’t fool the scientists, only the scientifically ignorant! (See my post Spotting Bad Science For Dummies – Like Me.)

In the broader scientific community, junk science studies are dismissed as trash instantly because of lack of data, lack of repeatability, major problems with methodology, the fact that these types of studies are often published in journals that accept any ol’ study as long as the fee gets paid – and other glaring reasons. Only the scientifically gullible, the irrational, the conspiracy theorists, the fear-mongers buy that Seralini, Seneff, or countless other junk study authors are legitimate – and then off they go on the internet or other media – making a big fuss and attracting more folks like themselves.

But during this episode of The Doctors, there was rationality in the form of Donna Farmer and Travis Stork.

Common sense still works

I know we all care about health. I just wish common sense could prevail. We don’t have to spend half our income on organic food, or maintain a constant vigilance about every last bite that goes in our mouth for fear we are being harmed in some way.

A basic, albeit old-fashioned understanding of nutrition goes a long way: Choose a variety of foods from all the groups. Don’t drink too much soda or eat too many sugary desserts. Don’t smoke. Temper your drinking. Pre-packaged snacks, meals, dishes and desserts are quick and easy but likely full of a lot of undesirable ingredients that could be avoided if you made the food from scratch using fresh ingredients as much as possible. Common sense stuff – all of it.

~Julee K/Sleuth4Health

Here are links to the segment on The Doctors that aired on Monday, 5/19.

Well, well, well, Mr. Bill Nye appears to be the latest GMOs-Are-Actually-Pretty-Neat-Come-Lately. Welcome to the fold, Mr. Nye. I doubt many science types are surprised that you eventually got here, even if it took you awhile.

Apparently a face-to-face encounter with Monsanto scientists was enough for the science guy to stop questioning the safety, utility and reach of GMOs. Mr Nye, I fear you will be forever accused of having partaken of Monsanto’s kool-aid, as I was after I visited a Monsanto facility in Hawaii a few years back. One person went so far as to insinuate that Monsanto paid for my whole Hawaii vacation. If only!

Glad to see rationality and reason prevail here and it’s well about time. My respect for Nye is in tact.

And – is it just wishful thinking, or is Mother Jones’s Tom Philpott disguising a bit of squirm in this article?